It has almost become a common thing: giving a comment to an article and letting people hear our own voice about matters we are interested in. Then someone else responds to your opinion and gives his/her own opinion.
You can find this phenomenom almost everywhere nowadays, but this hasn’t always been like that. A few years ago, people could not simply publicly give there comment on news articles. This only started around 2005. Since then, we no longer have to rely on the general media and the biased view of the publishers.
Even official newspapers joined the world of User-Generated Content (UGC), allowing readers to comment on today’s matters. People can comment on the quality of the news as well, so news writers can take that into account and improve their newspapers. Stores also use this more often. People can comment on their products and give advice to the distributer to improve their products.
Facebook, Flickr and Youtube are examples of sites existing of UGC. People can post all kinds of media freely and this allows other people to look in their lives as much as the publisher wants them to.
Unfortunately there are also disadvantages to UGC, because the data published on the web could be violated and used for unintended purposes. Another problem is that everybody can add their comment or edit informational sources, such as Wikipedia. This causes the level of professionalism and truthfulness on the web to drop.
Because of this, it is unsure whether the publisher is actually basing his comment or judgement on factual data.
Another criticism would be whether the posts are all legal issues or should some of them be blocked from the audience?
Watch the film to have some more info on the subject, discussed by Tom Murphy of Revenue at SES San Jose 2009
So, UGC allows us to comment and let everybody hear our voice about any subjects we’re interested in, but is it a problem that ANYTHING can be published?